I just wrote this in response to
Prometheus' diary entry, but since it's like three pages long, figured I may as well make a diary entry of my own.
I haven't made any diary entries on the Veep Parlour Game myself, though I've been commenting on a bunch, and I wasn't even going to bother, but I keep hearing Clark's name mentioned time and time again as the best and/or most likely VP choice for Kery. Right off the bat I need to once again reiterate my caveat that I am not Anti-Clark. I'm not even a Democrat (Libertarian, actually), so consider this something of an outsider perspective (at least as far as the normal Kossa Nostra poster is concerned), but I can't for the life of me fathom in what universe Clark is a big help in the Veep slot, and I`m continually perplexed at how often his name comes up in VP polls here (noting it doesn`t often come up much among mainstream media reports).
Here is how you determine your VP, you first pick a STRATEGY, and then you pick the candidate that best serves that strategy. That's a cardinal rule. Sometimes, as with Edwards, immense public pressure changes the rule somewhat, but as a whole, it's a bad idea to start with a Veep, and then work downwards towards forming an electoral strategy around that. It's the other way around.
Take that as my premise (and feel free to disagree with it, of course), but coming from that angle, in what way does Clark help a Kerry ticket? People that want Clark on the ticket seem to be working backwards, to me. I.e. they look at Clark and then try to figure out how he fits into strategies. That's ass-backwards. Look at strategies first, and then figure out which VP candidates best fit them.
So, let's look at some strategies in relation to Clark:
Location, Location, Location.
If Kerry chooses to go with a Southern strategy, there are about 4 very viable candidates that would be above Clark on that list (Edwards being the top, and I'm sure you can fill in the blanks for the rest). Clark was unable to pull much sway with DEMOCRAT Southern voters, and I've seen nothing that suggests he'll hold more of a draw to Independents and Swing Republicans in the South (again, if you're looking at that as a strategy, you go with Edwards). So, Southern strategy = Clark at maybe a distant 3rd or 4th for a VP choice. I've seen no credible evidence that he would be any more of a draw in the South than Cleland, Lewis, Edwards, Nunn, whoever, the continued unsubstantiated assertions of Clark fans aside. Most often I hear "well, he won't HURT in the South", and that's true enough, but I don't think the guys that help in the Midwest, Florida, the Sun Belt, or any other swing areas but New England HURT in the South either. Clark may not HURT in the South, but if he doesn't significantly HELP either, why bother?
Geographically, if you're NOT going for a Southern Strategy, Clark fails the strategy litmus test even more. If you're going for the Midwest, you're picking at least 7 people above Clark. If you're going Sun Belt, Clark doesn't even rank. If you're going balls-to-the-walls for Florida, you have the Florida boys as the top two, followed by the Southern Boys, of which Clarks rates maybe 4th. So, going for Florida, Clark is in about 6th place.
Or, you're going for Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc etc. In that case, again, there are at least 4 people ahead of Clark in the "likely to help out there" line.
Looking at all that honestly, if Kerry goes for any viable geographic strategy, Clark is basically out of consideration. His only chance there is if Kerry wants to go with a Southern strategy, and even there, Clark's a longshot at best. He hardly rates if Kerry is looking for a VP to help him out in the Midwest, in Ohio, in Florida, in the Sun Belt, etc. You don't want a "doesn't hurt" VP when considering geography. You want a "helps" kind of guy.
But, there is the oft-repeated point, that geographic strategies may be a tad out of date. With that in mind, let's look at other strategies that Kerry may take.
Transcendent Strategies
1. Personal Charisma. Or just personality in general. This kind of melts into a lot of different aspects, such as campaign chutzpah, likeability, but the basic idea is that Kerry is stuffy, Senatorial, not particularly exciting, etc, and so a VP might be chosen to offset that. That the campaign will want to balance the ticket personality-wise. Do you think Clark is going to rate high on that scale? I don't. He's not a great stump guy, he isn't a great debater, he's not a great speaker, he's clunky and standoffish in interviews, and frankly, I think his Mister Rogers Slash Hard-Ass General image kind of creeps people out. But, that latter part might just be me. The point is, when I think of guys to try to weigh out against Kerry on personal charisma, let's just say that Clark isn't a guy that immediately pops into my head.
2. Record/experience. These are things that are important to Kerry, and important to his campaign (they know that the flip-flop thing will be the chiefly cited character attack from Rove and company this year). I won't beat a dead horse, but Clark's record of consistency isn't really going to inspire many people to change their minds when the Bush team roll out those attacks. And, for the record, that's a problem with a lot of VP choices this season. But if you're looking to balance out Kerry's record as a strategy, Clark as a VP doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
3. Swing voters. Maybe get a VP that can lock some swing categories of voters that Kerry might not be able to. Blacks, women, Latinos, labor, etc. What swing category is Clark going to be able to nail for Kerry that nobody else could?
3.5 A corollary to that, is if the candidate is very far to the left or right, it sometimes helps to pick a candidate that is strong in the center to balance the ticket. This is a strong argument in favor of some VP choices this year, but not Clark who, as far as I`m aware, doesn`t poll much better among Republicans and Independents than he does Democrats.
4. Media boost. When the media is barking at your heels, the polls are falling away from you, and people are beginning to write you off, there's no better way to throw a little punch in your campaign than to pick a booster VP. There's a lot to be said for this, and thus, a lot to be said for going against conventional wisdom and picking somebody a bit off-the-wall, but that adds some much needed media buzz to your campaign. Does Clark do that? Will Clark on the ticket breath new life into the campaign and media coverage?
5. Dependability. Sort of like what Cheney offered to Bush Jr. If there's one thing you DON'T want in a tight race, it's a VP ala Dan Quayle that starts sticking his foot in his mouth and starts getting NEGATIVE publicity for the campaign. You want a solid guy that you know you don't have to worry about, that will be, if anything, consistent and solid. That's why, so often there are really interesting and exciting choices out there, but candidates fall back to boring, run-of-the-mill, but imminently reliable VPs. That's why Gep is still very much being considered. Because while exciting and off-the-wall can be good, it can also be really, really bad (remember Perot's running mate, Stockdale?), because your campaign never knows what fuck-up they're going to have to spin next. Now, here, I should point out that I'm not bashing Clark, I think his foot-in-mouth problems this season can be chalked up to his inexperience, and that he'll likely iron them out over time. But, I don't think enough of that time has passed, certainly not in the mind of the Kerry campaign, and he'll be seen as a potential liability on that front. That's going to be a negative in his favor as far as the Kerry campaign is concerned, and frankly, I don't blame them.
6. Relationship with the Candidate. This is something that virtually NOBODY talks about, and yet is often the deciding factor. Namely, do the two LIKE each other? Do they respect each other? Can they live with each other? Some candidates, it should be noted, have no problem picking a VP that they don't personally like if it's politically expedient. And, Kerry's wishy-washiness aside, I don't think he's one of them. He's a "scratch my back I'll scratch yours" crony through and through. A lot of times, this consideration trumps many others. And, I just don't get the impression that Kerry can stand Clark. Maybe that's a hunch, but it's an educated one, I think. For the record, I also don't think that Kerry is particularly personally enamored with Edwards. But, as a consideration (and this is more a consideration than strategy, admittedly), contrast this with some other VP choices, like Gep, like Graham, like Cleland, that not only fulfill strategy, but who, by God, Kerry genuinely likes on a personal level.
Before you think there is no light at the end of the tunnel, I'll offer a few strategies that MIGHT play into Clark's favor.
7. Attack dog. Ah, finally, something that Clark is qualified for. A lot of candidates don't want to get their hands dirty in the day-to-day incumbent bashing, and look to their VPs to do the dirty work (this was the MO of Nixon, for instance). If you're picking a VP solely based on that strategy, Clark looks pretty good. He obviously has no qualms taking it to Bush. And, because of the nature of this political season, this sort of strategy might be more likely than you might expect. But, that said, I'm not sure if Clark's negatives are enough to sell him as Attack Dog alone. Meaning, there are plenty of candidates you can get to be an attack dog without eschewing some of the other things I mentioned above (and Kerry doesn't seem to mind much being his own attack dog, at least for now). Still, it bears mentioning.
8. Issue oriented. And it's here that I'll offer the most likely scenario for Clark as VP. Say you want a VP that gives you a needed boost to one specific issue, something to put you over the top on one of the central themes of your campaign. If you put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, and instead of geography, personality, media viability, dependability, etc, you decide that you're going for the brass-ring and wanting to make an election out of a single central theme (alternatively, if you think your opponent is going to do this and want to neutralize it). Okay, so again, putting strategy before candidates, let's look at the possible single-issues that Kerry might make this election into referendums on.
A. Economy. Seems most likely, though the economy is probably going to pick up this year. Still, not as much as the Bush projections, and the golden rule is that it's not how the economy is actually doing, but how people FEEL that the economy is doing. But, I digress. If you're taking the economy as your single-issue campaign, Clark is irrelevant.
B. National Security. There you go. If Kerry and his campaign decide that National Security is the single MUST-WIN issue this year, Clark has to be #1 on the VP list. I should point out that he's not the ONLY person on that list, even if it's single-issue National Security, but he's got to be on the top. The question becomes EVEN IF Kerry decides to run on single-issue National Security, are Clark's positives enough to outweigh his negatives? I.e., say you can pick another candidate that maybe isn't as strong as Clark on national security, but is strong nonetheless, and ALSO helps you geographically, personality-wise, etc etc, then will Clark still edge that person out? I'm not sure. But, if you're looking at the most likely scenario for Clark to be tapped, you should ask yourself that.
C. Culture. Morality. Whatever. In a season where Bush may try to drive a wedge on things like gay marriage, faith-based charity, etc, this is something to consider, picking a VP that neutralizes this. For completeness, thought I'd throw it out there. Because Lieberman tried to run on it, and, for John Lewis fans, this is the most likely scenario for him.
takes deep breath
Okay, so if you're going with strategy first and THEN selecting a VP, you have only two likely scenarios that will bring Clark to the table. Attack Dog and National Security. Do you think those are going to be the single most important issues that the Kerry team select as themes for the VP?
Now, of course, many will say that it isn't this simple, that it doesn't come down to just one strategy but rather a hodge-podge of them, and they'll be correct. But, we can at least look at those categories (and feel free to add/argue to that list, that's just off the top of my head) and figure in which Clark may fit, or in which he won't rate at all. If you're going, for instance, on The Midwest and The Economy with a dash of personality, you don't come up with Clark on your short list. If you're going for Personality, Southern strategy, and a bit of reliability, you don't get Clark. If you're going for Reliability and Florida, you don't get Clark. See what I'm getting at? The only way Clark gets tapped for VP is if the Kerry team sits down, asks themselves what they want out of a VP, and comes up with the answer "National Security Cred and Attack Dog Role, at the expense of everything else".
Which, I don't see happening.
I don't mind Clark at all. I think he'll be a really interesting candidate in coming years on the national level (he'd be a great VP choice for a Dean or a Hillary, for instance), but for Kerry, I just can't see in what strategy dichotomy Clark as a VP makes any sense, save the wishful thinking of Clark supporters. Looking at it objectively, and not just trying to bend reality to fit with your personal preferences, what plan of attack coming from the Kerry campaign do you see as being the most likely to get Clark tapped, and do you think that such a plan of attack is likely? Frankly, I think there are viable scenarios for Clark on a VP list, but, at the moment anyway, I'm guessing Clark is not on Kerry's.